Please help make a decision ASAP!

[lukee]

Hello All!

I have a choice between two stones. I really need some help deciding and I have to make a decision by Friday.
The main issue is the result I'm getting with the HCA tool... One diamond is a 1.4 and the other is a 4.7 on the HCA.


The first is 2.20 G VVS1 - EX EX EX
HCA = 1.4
Depth: 62.5%
Table: 56%
Crown: 35.5 deg
Pavilion: 40.6 dig
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick
Cutlet: none
Fluorescence: Medium Blue
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2156163853&weight=2.20
Price on this stone is about $1,500 more than the other.


The second is a 2.23 G VVS2 - EX EX EX
HCA = 4.7
Depth: 61.9%
Table: 60%
Crown: 35.5 deg
Pavilion: 41.0 dig
Girdle: Medium to slightly thick
Cutlet: none
Fluorescence: Medium Blue
https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=2135918220&weight=2.23

I have both in my possession and comparing one with the other I cannot tell any difference in brilliance or fire. They both look just as sparkly as each other. Is it worth the additional $1,500 for the upgrade in clarity and lower HCA score? The diameter is also slightly smaller and carat weight is less as well. Should I be worried about the types of inclusions on either stone?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

Lukee

 

[c-k]

Neither would be my choice, I would never spend the money for a VVS stone. I would look for a stone that is VS2 or even a SI1 in an Ideal cut.

You will never see the inclusions, even with a 10x loupe it will be hard.

 

[lukee]

Take this into consideration...
These were priced at the same pricepoint as similar VS1/2 diamonds. The VVS was almost a free upgrade.

 

[Sakuracherry]

The first one has better proportions, but it's cut a little deep. The second one has a larger table. Therefore, the second one faces up bigger. I'd take the first one if you had to pick between those two. Are you able to look at other diamonds?

 

[lukee]

At this point I don't have the time to source another stone. It really is down to these two. Thanks for your input...I was thinking to pick the same one but when I have them side by side they are basically indistinguishable so maybe I should save the 1500 and have a larger (barely) facing up stone.

 

[Sakuracherry]

Have you checked both stones under UV light?

 

[John P]

I'm a bit surprised you don't see some differences in visual character. By the numbers the 2.20 is a candidate for AGS 0 performance, where the 2.23 is predicted to be AGS 4. Even when we take GIA's averaging & rounding of numbers into account; they are not in the same performance category. In terms of cross-system approval and sustained value the first would appear (by the numbers) to have an advantage.

If you have the opportunity to compare them again, be sure they are both completely clean. Then make observations in several different lighting conditions; direct spotlighting, natural sunlight and then in low-lit conditions where there is little or no direct light. It may be helpful to take a friend along, and compare what you're seeing to his/her impressions.

If you have already done these things, and neither diamond has a different character or 'speaks' more than the other, make the decision that best fits you and the ultimate wearer, personally.

 

[Sakuracherry]

Now you know which one to pick Just make sure the stone is not milky or hazy under uv light.

 

[lukee]

Everyone has been very helpful...I will check them in natural light to see if they are hazy/milky at all. I am similarly surprised that both stones are performing so similar to one another given the completely different HCA scores.

Does anyone else believe that the first stone would be classified as AGS 0 and the second as 4?

 

[Andelain]

Everyone has been very helpful...I will check them in natural light to see if they are hazy/milky at all. I am similarly surprised that both stones are performing so similar to one another given the completely different HCA scores.

Does anyone else believe that the first stone would be classified as AGS 0 and the second as 4?

It's not a matter of what we believe, the stone either matches AGS0 numbers or it doesn't. If John Pollard tells me the stone could be an AGS0, I wouldn't doubt it for a second.

 

[John P]

It's not a matter of what we believe, the stone either matches AGS0 numbers or it doesn't. If John Pollard tells me the stone could be an AGS0, I wouldn't doubt it for a second.

Tip of the hat, Andelain. And you're exactly right, as "could" is the operative word.

AGSL applies a 3D system where each diamond is scanned and ray-tracing is used to see how all 57/58 facets interact for that specific diamond. The lab provides cut guides for manufacturers showing the grade predicted for certain proportion-sets. But that predicted number is a "could," as it's considered best-case and relies on the diamond being cut with strong consistency, appropriate minor facet angles and normal indexing.

Below are the corresponding AGSL cut guides for these diamonds - using the GIA numbers - with intersections for primary angles noted.
[AGSL guides used with permission]

7-9mm / 56 Table


7-9mm / 60 Table

 

[JulieN]

Whether you can see the difference or not, the second one is a known dud. We don't need to see pictures to confirm it.

The first one has a high probability of being excellent.